[10:49:41] --- chanwah has joined
[10:50:23] --- chanwah has left
[13:54:20] --- behcet.sarikaya has joined
[14:07:25] --- trond has joined
[14:07:34] --- trond has left
[14:07:37] --- trond has joined
[14:10:53] --- chanwah.ng has joined
[14:11:18] <chanwah.ng> no comment
[14:12:53] --- sam-xzq has joined
[14:13:18] <chanwah.ng> anyone not in the stateballroom require more details on what is being presented, please let me know, else I would only document the comments and response
[14:14:13] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: Milestone are too long in dates, there are documents for most of these already.
[14:14:33] <chanwah.ng> Montavont: It does not necessary means that we must wait til then
[14:14:50] <chanwah.ng> Jari: That's right, you can send them in.
[14:15:25] <chanwah.ng> Jari: We adjuste dthe dates since Mext, a lot of people will be working on different work items
[14:16:28] --- alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com has joined
[14:16:57] <chanwah.ng> Jari: wa sthere a change from Monam6 to Mext?
[14:17:05] <chanwah.ng> Montavont: Yes
[14:18:26] <chanwah.ng> Jari: We wanted a clean up when we merge the charter. What you are proposing here is borderline case. Similar to other efforts in the IETF. Now that the IESG has approve dthe charter, it might not be possible to add substantial changes.
[14:19:08] <chanwah.ng> Montavont: I think the changes I propose are mostly editorial.
[14:20:01] <chanwah.ng> Jari: I am ok with the things you are proposing ... but we should not go too much towards multiple home addresses.
[14:20:18] <chanwah.ng> Thierry: I don't think it's controversial.
[14:21:13] <chanwah.ng> Jari: I would need some time to look at the changes you proposed to make sure it is not too mcuh towards things like multi-homed between multiple home addresses.
[14:22:55] <chanwah.ng> -- subtopic: proposed changes for milestone 4 in charter --
[14:23:30] <chanwah.ng> Jari: Is the proposed change really how the HA switch would work?
[14:23:57] --- onakayu has joined
[14:24:16] <chanwah.ng> Jari: I agree with the other changes (except HA switch part).
[14:26:12] <chanwah.ng> anyone not in the stateballroom require more details on what is being presented, please let me know, else I would only document the comments and response
[14:26:20] --- keyajima has joined
[14:28:08] --- montavont has joined
[14:30:57] <chanwah.ng> anyone not in the stateballroom require more details on what is being presented, please let me know, else I would only document the comments and response
[14:33:15] --- keyajima has left
[14:33:52] <chanwah.ng> -- Section 6: Is the list complete?
[14:34:53] <chanwah.ng> -- Next Steps:
[14:36:15] <chanwah.ng> Thierry: Is everyone happy with this draft?
[14:36:30] <chanwah.ng> Thieery How amny read the draft?
[14:36:45] <chanwah.ng> around 10.
[14:37:06] <chanwah.ng> Thierry: we need more comments.
[14:37:16] <chanwah.ng> Henrik: Maybe some comments later
[14:42:15] --- FDupont has joined
[14:43:47] <chanwah.ng> -- Open Points
[14:47:57] <chanwah.ng> Theirry: How many people ha dread the draft?
[14:48:07] <chanwah.ng> about 7~8
[14:49:20] <chanwah.ng> No comments from floor
[14:49:32] <chanwah.ng> Ops, ignore previous
[14:50:21] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: we shouldn't deal with HA addresses. I don't see any specific problem
[14:50:33] <chanwah.ng> Montavont: what happen if HA is multihomed
[14:51:08] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: It maybe useful to have some text, but i see no issues
[14:51:21] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: The home agent is always multihomed.
[14:51:47] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: Not necessary, can operate with one single interface
[14:51:58] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: there is also logical interface
[14:52:51] <chanwah.ng> -- Status
[14:53:10] <chanwah.ng> -- H-Flag for BID sub-option
[14:56:31] <chanwah.ng> Suri: What is the purpose of supporitng this scenario
[14:56:53] <chanwah.ng> Thierry: For the use case, you cna refer to the scenario draft
[14:57:11] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: This is not mandatory
[14:57:56] <chanwah.ng> Jari: You point to a draft that is not a WG document -- is that normative.
[14:58:49] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: There is many application for No-NDP.
[14:59:36] <chanwah.ng> Jari: If you actually need this feature, you may incur delay. Please explore some other way to support this.
[15:01:01] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: I am trying to figure out how if the MN is at home, you are assuming the H-flag is not bind to the tunnel, but to home interface
[15:01:53] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: Must not to intercept packet?
[15:02:33] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: No, must not use NDProxy to intercept. It must still intercept.
[15:04:01] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: whether we need this extension.
[15:04:22] <chanwah.ng> <???>: I think this is a useful scenario
[15:04:45] <behcet.sarikaya> George Tsirtis
[15:04:49] --- alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com has left
[15:05:06] <chanwah.ng> George Tsirtis: Why is home CoA rejected?
[15:05:42] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: We didn't actually reject it, but HomeCoA requires more changes.
[15:06:14] <chanwah.ng> George: I think homeCoA is a much cleaner at higher layer
[15:06:47] <chanwah.ng> Raj: Its not obvious to me we need extension. It's HA implementation.
[15:07:44] <chanwah.ng> Keigo: On flow bidning, home interface can have BID as well. So no influence on flow filtering
[15:08:06] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: DO we need to support this scenario?
[15:08:33] <chanwah.ng> Theirry: This issue is documented in the analysis draft.
[15:08:49] <chanwah.ng> -- Binding Revocation
[15:10:27] <chanwah.ng> -- Next Step
[15:11:54] <chanwah.ng> Thierry: We need to look at the result of the LC on the 2 informational WG documents before deciding onissuing WGLC on this one
[15:13:23] <chanwah.ng> Chair: DO w ehave consensus to adopt soliman draft as WG draft for 4th deliverable
[15:14:00] <chanwah.ng> No against, confirm this in ML
[15:16:07] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: where is optimum format for defining a flow: FID, DiffServ Codepoints, etc?
[15:17:27] <chanwah.ng> Henrik: If we can find one, that's fine. But the goal is not to re-engineer. I think BF is good, but if there is other candidate, we should look at it?
[15:18:01] <chanwah.ng> George: What's the split titles?
[15:18:43] <chanwah.ng> Montavont: we agreed on having a "generic" draft for the format.
[15:19:11] <chanwah.ng> Hesham: we just need to finalize the actual format being used.
[15:19:42] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: Keio has a draft for this format as well. Why is it not listed.
[15:20:27] <chanwah.ng> Ryuji: we can alwasy remove the transport part of the draft and resubmit
[15:20:49] --- behcet.sarikaya has left
[15:21:40] --- chanwah.ng has left
[15:28:46] --- FDupont has left
[15:30:11] --- trond has left
[15:44:49] --- montavont has left
[15:46:13] --- sam-xzq has left
[16:22:19] --- sam-xzq has joined
[16:23:27] --- sam-xzq has left
[18:59:20] --- onakayu has left